header-logo header-logo

16 July 2010
Issue: 7426 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Sale of goods

Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and another [2010] EWHC 619 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 37 (Jul)

On settled law, s 25 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 required a consideration of the following:

(i) whether the persons who bought or agreed to buy the goods (in the instant case the charterers, who had purchased bunkers from the owners), had obtained possession of the goods with the consent of the seller;

(ii) whether there had been delivery, within the meaning of s 25 of the Act, of the bunkers by the charterers to the owners;

(iii) whether the owners had received the bunkers in good faith and without notice of any lien or other right of the original seller in respect of the goods; and

(iv) if there had been a delivery by the charterers to the owners, pursuant to a sale, the charterers had acted in the ordinary course of their business as charterers and had delivered goods pursuant to a sale, which would constitute acting in the ordinary course of business

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll